>>>>> "MT" == Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: MT> However, the issues to be checked is in fact... quite a lot, isn't MT> it? It depends on the package. One of those one-file PHP modules requires significantly less checking than a large graphical application. MT> And.. in (not a few) case, do I have to list all items like MT> scriptlets, Why not? Scriptlets are one of the more critical areas where it's quite possible to screw up systems. They always deserve significant scrutiny, and if you checked them, why not say so? MT> python issues.... so on? Well, if you're reviewing a python module, why wouldn't you? But on the other hand, if you're reviewing, say, a Perl module and it's just the specfile template with the necessary details filled in, then it should be reasonable to just say that it follows the template and that you checked that the filled-in details are correct. MT> In fact I was rather confused when I received a mail with many MT> check lists and I had to ask "So, what is blocking this bug?" I always summarize things up front, and clearly mark the places in the checklist which I believe are problematic. If the reviewer of your package did not do that, what's lost by just asking them to do so? MT> I think only mentioning "these issues are bad. Please fix!!" is MT> enough. Isn't it rather obvious from this discussion and the events surrounding it that such a thing is simply not sufficient? - J< -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
